Every time I read one of these threads, I have to ask why are some of you even looking at EVs? At least half of you live in areas where your electrical utility uses fossil fuels (mostly coal) to generate the electricity you'll be using to charge the vehicle so the environmental bona fides are questionable (different argument if you live where electricity is generated by hydro-electric or other non-GHG source). What's so compelling about an EV if you're generating as much atmospheric carbon by charging the vehicle as you are by using a modern ICE?

Every time I read one of these threads, I have to ask why are some of you even looking at EVs? At least half of you live in areas where your electrical utility uses fossil fuels (mostly coal) to generate the electricity you'll be using to charge the vehicle so the environmental bona fides are questionable (different argument if you live where electricity is generated by hydro-electric or other non-GHG source). What's so compelling about an EV if you're generating as much atmospheric carbon by charging the vehicle as you are by using a modern ICE?

The short answer is that I don't care. I drove ICE powered vehicles for decades without thinking about the environment and I will continue to not think about the environment when driving an EV.

That's an oversimplification of my actual thoughts, but for practical purposes you can just assume that is true for every EV driver you meet if it helps you be less distracted by bewilderment each time that happens.

So then, what's left as a motivator? For right now, its:

Near zero maintenance

Recharging at home instead of stopping at a gas station to refuel

Because of the above, and since I got my EV cheap (under $20k) my cost of ownership is very low.

For my next EV, the following will also apply (some already apply for those driving some models of EVs):

More interior space per vehicle footprint area (small vehicles are more convenient to maneuver and park)

RWD-first vehicle architecture (EVs are usually RWD-first due to lower cost of packaging this layout)

Power output not limited by emissions regulations (unlimited power potential)

Even on performance alone I can get on board with EV car, more space for same performance, if long distance is far and in between (once a year) then never have to go to gas station alone is probably a plus then the instant torque (you don't need Model S 100P performance just off the line is brisk)

Every time I read one of these threads, I have to ask why are some of you even looking at EVs? At least half of you live in areas where your electrical utility uses fossil fuels (mostly coal) to generate the electricity you'll be using to charge the vehicle so the environmental bona fides are questionable (different argument if you live where electricity is generated by hydro-electric or other non-GHG source). What's so compelling about an EV if you're generating as much atmospheric carbon by charging the vehicle as you are by using a modern ICE?

The cost to operate an EV is 75% less, and scheduled maintenance is only changing the brake fluid every 24 months. Who cares about saving the planet when you can save all that green?????

you guys realize that "342 miles" of range is extremely optimistic right? That's the WLTP cycle. An EPA cycle (which is much more realistic) will end up being more like 250 miles.

In any case, it's got a 77kWh battery. The Chevrolet Bolt, which has a 60kWh battery, is rated at 238 miles EPA. For a similarly sized vehicle with more than 25% more battery capacity, a range up around 300 miles EPA should be possible.

mkoeselvreihen16 fair comments. I have seen and interacted with so many EV drivers (most notably Tesla acolytes) who actually proselytize their EV choice as "saving the planet". The environmental argument in favour of mass adoption of EVs is specious, at best, so I feel periodically compelled to argue the point.

I can accept other arguments at face value, which is why I raised the question in the way I did. Personally, I think the answer lies elsewhere (fuel cell technology because we're on the verge a breakthrough in hydrogen production that will not rely on vast amounts of GHG producing electricity because it resolves many of the barriers to EV adoption without the same degree of reliance on coal or natural gas). I also measure the environmental question in more than GHGs (habitat destruction, impacts of lithium mining/production, etc), but climate is a critical issue that should be at the forefront of the discussion.

Long way of saying that I promote a consideration of EVs based on rational criteria, not Elon Musk's kool-aid which is what I mostly run into.

Different topic, but yes, that's another small RWD electric hatchback we won't get. That one's distinctly not a long range vehicle that would suit US tastes, however. It only has a 35.5kWh battery. It's also small enough such that, even with its efficient packaging, it's not going to appeal to the typical US buyer.

Sure, whatever works best long term is fine with me. An FCEV is still an EV (its right there in the name), so all the things that make EVs attractive to me today should still apply. That is except, of course, home charging. However, on the route to becoming consumer-ready, a future FCEV evolution could be the inclusion of a small battery for daily use, with the ability to use the fuel cell for longer trips and quick refills.

In any case, it's got a 77kWh battery. The Chevrolet Bolt, which has a 60kWh battery, is rated at 238 miles EPA. For a similarly sized vehicle with more than 25% more battery capacity, a range up around 300 miles EPA should be possible.

Should be, but as we saw with the Audi e-tron, battery life in reality is often much lower than the battery size would predict.

I really hope we get that Honda in the US. But I won't hold my breath..

mkoeselvreihen16 fair comments. I have seen and interacted with so many EV drivers (most notably Tesla acolytes) who actually proselytize their EV choice as "saving the planet". The environmental argument in favour of mass adoption of EVs is specious, at best, so I feel periodically compelled to argue the point.

I can accept other arguments at face value, which is why I raised the question in the way I did. Personally, I think the answer lies elsewhere (fuel cell technology because we're on the verge a breakthrough in hydrogen production that will not rely on vast amounts of GHG producing electricity because it resolves many of the barriers to EV adoption without the same degree of reliance on coal or natural gas). I also measure the environmental question in more than GHGs (habitat destruction, impacts of lithium mining/production, etc), but climate is a critical issue that should be at the forefront of the discussion.

Long way of saying that I promote a consideration of EVs based on rational criteria, not Elon Musk's kool-aid which is what I mostly run into.

Hydrogen fuel cells for all is ridiculous, the cost of making and transporting hydrogen for use and the infrastructure it requires would make it crazy expensive and increase the impact on the environment. It might make some sense in small niches, but itís a ridiculous idea overall. To have to produce it, transport it, store it, all with no current infrastructure, will be costly and inefficient. Making electricity at a central station and using and increasing existing infrastructure makes way more sense.

Hydrogen fuel cells for all is ridiculous, the cost of making and transporting hydrogen for use and the infrastructure it requires would make it crazy expensive and increase the impact on the environment. It might make some sense in small niches, but itís a ridiculous idea overall. To have to produce it, transport it, store it, all with no current infrastructure, will be costly and inefficient. Making electricity at a central station and using and increasing existing infrastructure makes way more sense.

You need to read for comprehension. I said we appear to be on the edge a technological breakthrough with hydrogen production. That addresses all those issues (essentially, low energy localized production of hydrogen to power fuel cell vehicles). If that doesn't happen, then you're right ... hydrogen's not the answer. But, that doesn't change the calculus about the environmental kool-aid EV acolytes are serving up all over the place. Making electricity by burning coal and natural gas does nothing to help the environment (and all those transportation issues you attribute to hydrogen fully apply to coal and other fossil fuels used for more than 65% of US electricity generation).